In the alphabet soup world of political and economic diplomacy, there is a triplet: IBSA comprising India, Brazil and South Africa; and a quintet: BRICS comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Between the two, there is a quartet, too, known as BASIC, comprising Brazil, South Africa, India and China. This functions in the area of climate change. Four days back, environment ministers of this group had their eighteenth quarterly conclave in the nation’s capital. The idea for having such a formal alliance was first discussed in September 2009 during a bilateral meeting of India and China on climate change in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference at Copenhagen. It was at Copenhagen in December 2009 that a landmark agreement was reached in dramatic circumstances between President Barack Obama on the one hand and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, President Jacob Zuma, Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the other. The highlight of the agreement was a transparent mechanism for international monitoring, reporting and verification of domestic actions, a mechanism which will ensure that countries would hold themselves accountable internationally for what they pledge to accomplish domestically. It was this “deal”, more than anything else, that rescued the high-profile Copenhagen meet from a complete collapse. This US-BASIC agreement led to the Copenhagen Accord in which most countries enshrined their voluntary commitments (or, as some like China say, contributions). India, for example, committed to reduce its emission intensity per unit of GDP (a relative, not absolute cut in emissions) by 20-25% over 2005 levels by 2020. The success at Copenhagen was followed up by a further set of distinctive contributions by the foursome at Cancun in December 2010, especially on how mitigation actions by developed countries should be assessed and evaluated by the international community. Of course, the group is not completely monolithic. It cannot be. China, India and South Africa are all overwhelmingly fossil fuel economies while Brazil depends heavily on its vast hydel resources and is the world leader in biofuels. India’s stance on per capita emissions as the pivot for enshrining equity has not found favour with the other three countries, neither has its idea of global carbon budgets. Brazil and South Africa have a different take on a legally-binding agreement than India and China. South Africa is likely to back the equity reference framework (ERF), a fresh approach to ensure effectiveness and equity in the global agreement expected to be finalised in Paris in December 2015. This has the backing of the Africa Group. But India, along with some countries like Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, among others, has opposed the ERF. Nevertheless, even with different viewpoints, the four countries have found it useful to meet regularly, exchange views, issue joint statements and coordinate their negotiating tactics. Now, the group faces a new challenge and this emanates from the changing stance of China. China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and in 2012, the latest year for which internationally comparable data is available, contributed around 29% of the world’s total (as compared with the 16% share of US, 11% of the European Union, 6% of India, 1.5% of Brazil and 1% of South Africa). It is acutely conscious of this dubious distinction and knows it is under public gaze the world over. But there is another, perhaps even more important, reason for Beijing’s change in approach. This arises from the rapidly expanding environmental constituency within China, a constituency that has grown in response to worsening air and water pollution and chemical contamination. The Chinese media is permitted to report on environmental threats and disasters quite freely. Ever so gradually, but surely, China is showing signs of pragmatism and flexibility. China is engaging the US intensely at both political and official levels and talking seriously even about issues considered taboo just a few years ago—for instance, what to do about hydrofluorocarbons which have substituted for the ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons but are potent greenhouse gases. Even as it has negotiated tough (and continues to do so) along with India in global forums to preserve the sanctity of “common but differentiated responsibility” principle, when it comes to climate change mitigation actions by developed and developing countries, it has taken visibly strong domestic initiatives. This is because it has recognised that green technology is the new frontier and an area for exercising strategic leadership. This is in keeping with its “walking on two legs” policy articulated by Chinese planners decades back in another context. This is something India should emulate. Undoubtedly, India must help keep the BASIC flag flying. But it must shed its image of being needlessly argumentative and overly obstructionist in climate change negotiations. At Copenhagen and Cancun, India acquired a whole new positive and constructive image for itself as a country that goes out of its way to listen, engage and also contribute constructively and proactively to finding solutions. It is not just the “what” that matters in such global meets, it is also the “how” that is important. It is in the latter dimension of “atmospherics” and “optics” that India has very often come across negatively and in climate change forums, this negative image is not just among the developed countries, but also among a very large number of developing countries, some of which are in our own region. In the run-up to Paris, India must restore to itself the reputation it had worked so hard to develop between 2009 and 2011 (even if that reputation while drawing encomiums internationally irked traditionalists at home). Negotiators can negotiate hard but ultimately, politicians must summon up the courage to provide leadership in enlightened self-interest and demonstrate the resilience to stand up to the inevitable criticism that inevitably accompanies any change. The author is a Rajya Sabha MP and former Union minister.